Jackson et al v. Mike-Lopez et al
ORDER denying 42 Motion to Appoint Counsel (Written Opinion) Signed by Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson on 4/10/2018. (TMM)cc: all pro se plaintiffs. Modified text on 4/10/2018 (MMP).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Ronnie Jackson; Joshua Jones; Shane
Kringen; Marvin Franco-Morales;
Mitchell Osterloh; and Jesse Plentyhorse,
Civ. No. 17-4278 (JRT/BRT)
Sharlene Mike-Lopez; Diane Medchill;
Kathy Ried; Bruce Rieser; David Rieshus;
Tom Roy; and Michelle Smith,
Plaintiff Shane Kringen has requested appointment of counsel in this matter. See
Doc. No. 42. “A pro se litigant has no statutory or constitutional right to have counsel
appointed in a civil case.” Stevens v. Redwing, 146 F.3d 538, 546 (8th Cir. 1998); see
also In re Lane, 801 F.2d 1040, 1042 (8th Cir. 1986) (“The decision to appoint counsel in
civil cases is committed to the discretion of the district court.”). It is not yet apparent that
appointment of counsel would benefit either plaintiffs or the Court. Plaintiff complains
that he has been denied access to his legal work and does not have the resources to
comply with court deadlines. Thus far, the plaintiffs have presented their claims with
reasonable clarity. Accordingly, the motion for appointment of counsel will be denied
without prejudice. That said, this Court will reconsider the request for counsel sua sponte
should future circumstances dictate.
Plaintiff also requests waiver of service, but waiver has already been requested by
the Clerk’s Office. (See Doc. No. 41.) Therefore, this motion will also be denied without
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
The motion of plaintiff Shane Kingren for appointment of counsel and
waiver of service (Doc. No. 42) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
s/ Becky R. Thorson
BECKY R. THORSON
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: April 10, 2018
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?